LEXARA: Journal of Law and Legal Studies
LEXARA Journal of Law and Legal Studies is an academic journal specifically focused on Legal Science and Legal Studies. The journal publishes research in which law constitutes the principal object of inquiry, including the analysis of legal norms, legal doctrines, legislation, judicial decisions, legal institutions, law enforcement, legal policy, legal systems, and legal reform. The principal areas of study include Public Law, Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, State Institutional Law, Election Law, and Human Rights Law. The journal also covers Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, including substantive Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, Law of Evidence, Sentencing and Penal Law, and Criminal Law Policy. Private and Economic Law are also included, covering Civil Law, Family and Inheritance Law, Commercial and Corporate Law, Contract Law, Labour Law, Consumer Protection, Intellectual Property Law, and Business Regulation. The journal covers International and Comparative Law, including Public International Law, Private International Law, Comparative Law, Transnational Law, and comparative studies of national legal systems. Specialised and emerging fields of law are also within the scope of the journal, including Environmental Law, Natural Resources and Agrarian Law, Maritime Law, Health Law, Islamic Law, Cyber Law, Data Protection Law, Artificial Intelligence Regulation, and other developing legal fields when the research principally addresses legal questions. The journal also publishes research in Legal Theory and Legal Development, including Jurisprudence, Philosophy of Law, Sociology of Law, Anthropology of Law, Legal History, Legislative Studies, Judicial Studies, Legal Policy, Access to Justice, and Law Reform. LEXARA accepts normative, doctrinal, statutory, conceptual, case based, comparative, historical, philosophical, empirical legal, and socio legal research. Interdisciplinary methods may be employed when they are used to examine a clearly defined legal problem.
Articles
9 Documents
<![CDATA[Defining Murder Across Legal Traditions: Toward a Transsystemic Theory of Intentional Homicide ]]>
<![CDATA[Zul Khaidir Kadir]]>
<![CDATA[ LEXARA: Journal of Law and Legal Studies Vol. 1 No. 1 (2026): LEXARA: Journal of Law and Legal Studies ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Punggawa Legacy Center ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
<![CDATA[Comparative homicide scholarship lacked a framework for identifying a common basis for intentional homicide without treating national offence categories as doctrinal equivalents. This study developed a transsystemic explanation that preserved differences in culpability and offence structure across legal traditions. It used normative legal research with statutory, case, conceptual, and comparative approaches, drawing on legislation, selected decisions, official law reform documents, and academic literature from England and Wales, France, Germany, Indonesia, Pakistan, and South Africa. The findings showed that the most consistent basis arose when death was intended, while knowledge of practical certainty remained functionally close but could not serve as a universal standard. Serious injury intent and dolus eventualis could not be placed on one linear scale because they differed in the consequence intended and the offender's awareness of death. Premeditation, motive, method, and connections to other offences produced different legal effects according to their position within each offence structure. These findings supported the Core-Gradient-Architecture Model, which separated relatively stable culpability, variations in the offender's mental attitude toward death, and national choices concerning offence labels and aggravation. The model provided a more precise basis for fair labelling and comparative analysis without reducing distinct national categories to false equivalents.]]>
<![CDATA[Paying the Hacker, Funding the Ecosystem: Criminalising Ransomware Payments without Punishing Victim Organisations ]]>
<![CDATA[H.B Hasan Basri]]>
<![CDATA[ LEXARA: Journal of Law and Legal Studies Vol. 1 No. 1 (2026): LEXARA: Journal of Law and Legal Studies ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Punggawa Legacy Center ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
<![CDATA[Existing scholarship had explained how ransom payments sustained ransomware markets, but it had not adequately separated the systemic harm of payment from the criminal culpability of victim organisations acting under pressure. This article examined how ransomware payments could be controlled without making victim organisations the primary targets of criminal punishment. Normative legal research was conducted through statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches using legislation, sanctions guidance, policy documents, and academic literature from Australia, the United States, and the United Kingdom. The analysis found that ransom payments maintained the profitability of Ransomware-as-a-Service and supported a wider criminal ecosystem, yet the transfer itself did not establish equal culpability in every case. Blanket criminalisation overlooked differences in knowledge, recovery capacity, threat severity, and cooperation with authorities. A victim-protective model was therefore proposed in which payments remained reportable and subject to reasonable pre-payment scrutiny, while criminal liability focused on knowing prohibited payments, concealment, false reporting, and deliberate circumvention. Limited protection for compelled reports and narrowly framed emergency exceptions preserved cooperation and proportionality. The analysis also found that state recovery support was necessary to make refusal to pay operationally realistic.]]>
<![CDATA[From Propaganda to Synthetic Operations: Generative AI and the Transformation of Cyberterrorism ]]>
<![CDATA[Nadiah Khaeriah Kadir]]>
<![CDATA[ LEXARA: Journal of Law and Legal Studies Vol. 1 No. 1 (2026): LEXARA: Journal of Law and Legal Studies ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Punggawa Legacy Center ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
<![CDATA[Existing studies largely treated generative AI in cyberterrorism as a tool for synthetic propaganda, leaving unclear when its outputs began to support operational preparation and how existing law could respond. This study examined the movement from AI-assisted propaganda toward synthetic operations and assessed its legal implications. It used normative legal research with conceptual and statutory approaches, supported by scholarly literature, open-source documents, and European Union law. The findings indicated that documented terrorist use remained concentrated in content production, translation, adaptation, and reuse. Generative AI nevertheless acquired operational relevance when outputs could be applied with limited correction and connected to later tasks in preparing or carrying out terrorist activity. Open evidence did not establish autonomous or systematic AI-driven terrorist workflows; synthetic operations therefore remained an analytical threshold rather than a settled practice. The synthetic origin of content also did not determine legal responsibility. Criminal attribution continued to depend on human intent, use, and connection to prohibited conduct, while regulatory duties varied according to the role and capacity of model providers, applications, hosting services, and online platforms. Technology-neutral rules remained relevant, although proof, attribution, and content-focused regulation became more difficult when assistance was distributed across services and occurred before public dissemination.]]>
<![CDATA[Comparative Study of Pre-Assault Intervention Capacity and Its Implications for Indonesian Domestic Violence Law ]]>
<![CDATA[Fadhil Hayan Mochammad]]>
<![CDATA[ LEXARA: Journal of Law and Legal Studies Vol. 1 No. 1 (2026): LEXARA: Journal of Law and Legal Studies ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Punggawa Legacy Center ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
<![CDATA[Domestic violence law responds more readily to discrete incidents, whereas coercive control develops through surveillance, dependency, restriction, and intimidation that may become legally visible only after harm occurs. Existing scholarship has not sufficiently connected offence design, intervention timing, and reform of Indonesian domestic violence law. This study examined whether criminal law could recognise coercive control before physical assault became the principal basis of a case and identified a defensible model for Indonesia. It employed normative legal research using statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches to Indonesian law and the offences of England and Wales, Scotland, New South Wales, and Queensland. The findings showed that coercive control could not be reduced to psychological violence because its central harm lay in cumulative restrictions on autonomy. Serious-effect offences provided clearer boundaries but tied liability to harm already experienced, while likely-harm models could operate earlier when combined with a serious course of conduct and a defined mental element. Indonesian law recognised psychological harm and economic control but did not connect controlling acts as one course of conduct. A hybrid model was more defensible, retaining existing offences while adding an autonomous pattern-based offence subject to seriousness, likely harm, intent, proportionality, and clear rules on concurrence.]]>
<![CDATA[Criminalising Electoral Evidence: A Comparative Legal Framework for Electoral Integrity and Political Speech ]]>
<![CDATA[Muhammad Fadel Kadir]]>
<![CDATA[ LEXARA: Journal of Law and Legal Studies Vol. 1 No. 1 (2026): LEXARA: Journal of Law and Legal Studies ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Punggawa Legacy Center ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
<![CDATA[Existing regulation of election deepfakes had focused on the technology used or the falsity of content, leaving the boundary between electoral deception and political speech insufficiently defined. This study aimed to formulate a narrow basis for criminalising synthetic media used as false evidence in elections without expanding state authority to determine political truth. A normative legal method was applied through statutory, conceptual, and comparative analysis of legislation and judicial decisions from Indonesia, the European Union, South Korea, California, and Washington. The findings showed that deepfake was an unsuitable object of criminalisation because it described a production technique rather than the legal wrong involved. A more precise object was synthetic evidence, namely media created or materially altered to appear as an authentic record of an electoral fact that did not occur or differed materially from reality. The comparison showed that disclosure, temporal limits, fault requirements, and non-criminal remedies performed distinct functions. Criminal liability was justified only when an actor knew that a recording was false, intended it to be accepted as authentic to influence electoral choice or disrupt election administration, falsified a material fact, and created a concrete danger through its distribution. Clearly disclosed synthetic media remained within protected political speech.]]>
<![CDATA[The Cleared-Case Canon: Investigative Selection as a Structural Limit on General Homicide Theory Building ]]>
<![CDATA[Zul Khaidir Kadir]]>
<![CDATA[ LEXARA: Journal of Law and Legal Studies Vol. 1 No. 2 (2026): LEXARA: Journal of Law and Legal Studies ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Punggawa Legacy Center ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.67707/lexara.v1i2.197
<![CDATA[Offender-specific homicide knowledge becomes available through investigative and institutional records that represent only some homicide cases. Police records may describe an event, while offender-known, court, correctional, and forensic records may provide motive, offender history, and victim–offender information for narrower populations. This article develops the cleared-case canon as a label for the risk that evidence from such cases becomes a default basis for general homicide theory. The article uses a focused qualitative analysis of 44 purposively selected scholarly publications. It treats published research as secondary literature and distinguishes variable missingness from investigative selection and case flow. The analysis shows that these are different problems. Missingness concerns absent information within a defined dataset. Investigative selection concerns whether a case can produce offender-specific information at all. Case flow further narrows the populations represented by prosecution, conviction, correctional, and specialist records. The claim-scope check classifies claims as aligned when they name the observed population, qualified when they explain a bridge to a wider population, and mismatched when they generalize beyond their evidence. The article does not estimate selection effects or claim fixed differences between cleared and uncleared homicides. It proposes evidentiary congruence between the research gateway, represented population, and conclusion.]]>
<![CDATA[Klaim Traditional Fishing Ground Tiongkok di Laut Natuna Utara dan Implikasinya terhadap Hak Berdaulat Indonesia ]]>
<![CDATA[Yuniar Dwi Fibria R]]>;
<![CDATA[Nurkarmila]]>;
<![CDATA[Ariya Rastra Putra]]>;
<![CDATA[Kemas Hidayat]]>;
<![CDATA[Muh Reyham]]>;
<![CDATA[Muhammad Aqil Manbaji]]>
<![CDATA[ LEXARA: Journal of Law and Legal Studies Vol. 1 No. 2 (2026): LEXARA: Journal of Law and Legal Studies ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Punggawa Legacy Center ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.67707/lexara.v1i2.198
<![CDATA[Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis kesesuaian klaim traditional fishing ground Tiongkok di Laut Natuna Utara dengan ketentuan United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) 1982 serta implikasinya terhadap hak berdaulat Indonesia. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian hukum normatif dengan pendekatan peraturan perundang-undangan, pendekatan konseptual, dan pendekatan kasus. Bahan hukum primer berupa UNCLOS 1982 dan peraturan perundang-undangan nasional yang berkaitan dengan Zona Ekonomi Eksklusif Indonesia, sedangkan bahan hukum sekunder diperoleh dari buku dan jurnal ilmiah yang relevan. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa konsep traditional fishing ground yang diklaim Tiongkok tidak memiliki dasar hukum yang tegas dalam UNCLOS 1982. Konvensi tersebut hanya mengakui traditional fishing rights dalam kondisi tertentu dan tidak dapat dijadikan dasar untuk melakukan aktivitas penangkapan ikan secara sepihak di Zona Ekonomi Eksklusif negara lain. Penelitian ini juga menemukan bahwa klaim Tiongkok berpotensi mengganggu pelaksanaan hak berdaulat Indonesia atas pengelolaan sumber daya perikanan di Laut Natuna Utara. Selain itu, Putusan Arbitrase Laut Tiongkok Selatan Tahun 2016 semakin memperkuat kedudukan hukum Indonesia dalam menolak klaim historis yang bertentangan dengan rezim hukum laut internasional. Oleh karena itu, Indonesia tetap memiliki hak berdaulat eksklusif untuk mengelola dan memanfaatkan sumber daya alam di wilayah tersebut.]]>
<![CDATA[The Legal Status of Persons with Disabilities in Rehabilitation, Training, and Sheltered Employment Programmes ]]>
<![CDATA[Achmad Kemal]]>
<![CDATA[ LEXARA: Journal of Law and Legal Studies Vol. 1 No. 2 (2026): LEXARA: Journal of Law and Legal Studies ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Punggawa Legacy Center ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.67707/lexara.v1i2.203
<![CDATA[Rehabilitation, vocational training, and sheltered employment were examined as settings that can support persons with disabilities while creating uncertainty about the legal status of productive activity. The problem arose when a programme was formally described as training or rehabilitation although participants performed recurring work under organisational direction and received payment connected to that work. This study used normative legal research with Indonesian employment and disability law as its principal legal materials. Article 27 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and General Comment No. 8 provided the international disability rights framework. Peer reviewed research was used as secondary material to clarify the institutional features of sheltered work, vocational rehabilitation, and supported employment. The analysis found that programme terminology should not operate as a preliminary exemption from employment status review. Under Indonesian law, work, wages, orders, and the existence of a work agreement remained central. Regular scheduling, productive integration, and economic benefit were relevant only when they assisted interpretation of those legal elements. A substance based review was proposed to distinguish genuine rehabilitation or training from arrangements in which ordinary labour protection may already be legally relevant.]]>
<![CDATA[Pencurian dan Perdagangan Ilegal Bahan Nuklir: Harmonisasi Rezim Keamanan Nuklir Internasional dalam Pembaharuan Hukum Ketenaganukliran Indonesia ]]>
<![CDATA[Gumilang Fuadi]]>;
<![CDATA[Windy Virdinia Putri]]>
<![CDATA[ LEXARA: Journal of Law and Legal Studies Vol. 1 No. 2 (2026): LEXARA: Journal of Law and Legal Studies ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Punggawa Legacy Center ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.67707/lexara.v1i2.205
<![CDATA[Pencurian dan perdagangan ilegal bahan nuklir untuk penggunaan jahat dan terorisme nuklir merupakan perhatian prioritas tinggi untuk keamanan nuklir di dalam negeri dan internasional. Penelitian ini mengkaji pencurian dan perdagangan ilegal bahan nuklir dalam kaitannya dengan rezim hukum internasional keamanan nuklir dan pengaturannya di Indonesia. Metode yang digunakan dalam kajian ini adalah penelitian dogmatis (normatif) dengan mengintegrasikan pendekatan perundang-undangan (statute approach) serta pendekatan konseptual (conceptual approach). Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa upaya penanganan dan pencegahan pencurian dan perdagangan ilegal bahan nuklir dalam rezim keamanan nuklir internasional telah diatur dalam berbagai instrumen hukum internasional, pencurian dan perdagangan ilegal bahan nuklir dan sumber radioaktif merupakan salah satu aspek perhatian dalam keamanan nuklir bersama dengan safeguards, proteksi fisik, pengendalian ekspor dan impor, serta terorisme. Pencurian dan perdagangan ilegal dapat muncul ketika langkah-langkah perlindungan fisik dalam keamanan nuklir telah gagal diterapkan. Keamanan nuklir merupakan salah satu dari 4 (empat) pilar hukum nuklir yaitu keselamatan, keamanan, safeguard, dan pertanggungjawaban. Di sisi yang lain, Undang-Undang Nomor 10 Tahun 1997 tentang Ketenaganukliran merupakan dasar hukum ketenaganukliran di negara Indonesia, akan tetapi pengaturan keamanan nuklir sebagai upaya pencegahan pencurian dan perdagangan ilegal bahan nuklir belum diatur secara komphrensif sehingga perlu dilakukan pembaharuan terhadap rezim hukum ketenaganukliran di Indonesia.]]>
